Serious question about Meaning.

[workersunity]

Ive been reading Trotsky work "Their Morals and Ours": Marxist vs. Liberal views on morality. and came upon this quote


"that which expresses the historic goal of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature, and to the abolition of power of man over man"

I understand the second part, the part im wondering about is the part in bold. When he refers to nature is he talking bout like the primitiveness of capitalism, darwinism, and like the individualistic currents, or what. some help would be appreciated

Someone answer

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] Their Morals and Ours

the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.


I think Trotsky is saying we need to focus on how we can produce and utilize our resources(nature) to achieve survival. Exploitation of man by man is not necessary to achieve this end.

[workersunity]

utilize even if it destroys it, see thats where im wondering, although thank you for responding as no one else did

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:27 PM
"that which expresses the historic goal of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature, and to the abolition of power of man over man"

I understand the second part, the part im wondering about is the part in bold. When he refers to nature is he talking bout like the primitiveness of capitalism, darwinism, and like the individualistic currents, or what. some help would be appreciated
No, here Trotsky is actually referring to the natural world itself. When this document was written, people were still very much at the mercy of major natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, which could not be seen until 24-48 hours before they made landfall ... if they were lucky). Thus, "overcoming nature" or "controlling nature" was considered to be historically progressive. (Few people at the time concerned themselves much with the environment; most of those who did were often associated with reactionary or fascist movements.)

Now, of course, such comments would seem, at the very least, to be one-sided and myopic. This goes to show how much value should be placed in blindly following a doctrine.

Miles

[workersunity]

ok i got it pretty well. so basically to use natures for mans need and to make it better so people dont get fucked over by it?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:33 PM
ok i got it pretty well. so basically to use natures for mans need and to make it better so people dont get fucked over by it?
In short, yes.

Miles

[redstar2000]

This is a subject that "resonates" with me in my particular recent circumstances. As a victim of both Katrina and Rita, I had considerable time to recall a few scraps of scientific history.

Back in the 1950s, there was proposed an idea to weaken and possibly even dissipate hurricanes before they had a chance to make landfall. The idea was to have a fleet of large bombers drop tons of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) into the eyewall...cooling it drastically and thus depriving it of energy. I believe a few small experiments were actually carried out on small storms with small but measurable success.

What happened to that idea? Well, it seems that someone in a federal agency became worried about liability...suppose a hurricane strengthened after an unsuccessful attempt to weaken it? Would the government be sued by the hurricane victims?

Thus the constraints of private property have taken precedence over human welfare. The victims of Katrina and Rita suffered because of something that was never done. We were not simply "victims of nature"...but of the system under which we lived.

Some suggest that the idea of humans "dominating nature" is "hubristic" or "arrogant". I have seen with my own eyes what happens when nature dominates humanity.

It's pretty damn ugly!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

All the bullshit about man dominating nature, is that bullshit! Sure we could stop the hurricanes, we could make it shine all day if we wanted. But do you want a globe without coral reefs? Do you like having (relatively) clean air to breath when you go to the country? Or do you like and want a fucked up planet?

As soon as humans try and dominate the planet, they will either fuck it up, or be fucked up. Bigger hurricanes, bigger floods, longer droughts. I think what we have now (in terms of climate) is better.


Originally posted by redstar2000
Thus the constraints of private property have taken precedence over human welfare. The victims of Katrina and Rita suffered because of something that was never done. We were not simply "victims of nature"...but of the system under which we lived.
It is the economic system, yes. But, people who complain of earthquakes and build brick/concrete houses (when they have the choice, unlike in Pakistan) should not complain when their houses fall down.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All the bullshit about man dominating nature, is that bullshit! Sure we could stop the hurricanes, we could make it shine all day if we wanted. But do you want a globe without coral reefs? Do you like having (relatively) clean air to breath when you go to the country? Or do you like and want a fucked up planet?

As soon as humans try and dominate the planet, they will either fuck it up, or be fucked up. Bigger hurricanes, bigger floods, longer droughts. I think what we have now (in terms of climate) is better.

[quote=redstar2000] Thus the constraints of private property have taken precedence over human welfare. The victims of Katrina and Rita suffered because of something that was never done. We were not simply "victims of nature"...but of the system under which we lived.[quote]
It is the economic system, yes. But, people who complain of earthquakes and build brick/concrete houses (when they have the choice, unlike in Pakistan) should not complain when their houses fall down.
You think most people in the US really choose to live on a faultline or in a sub-sea-level city? No, you can not talk about the development of cities without talking about capitalism as cities develop not out of what people want but what business needs and wants. In addition to that you have inequality and segregation. New Orleans is where it is because it was a good place for a port and trade not because people simply chose to settle there.

Why is South Central LA a slum? Because back in the day this is where the smog from factories settled. 5 ponts in NYC (the historical slum) was at the lowest point in the city and this is where all the sewage went (I suspect a similar reason for why the poor areas of New Orleans are similarly low).

Mastering nature in capitalism means exploiting it like everything else to make a buck. I think most workers in a socialist or communist society would also want to master nature, but this would be in the intrests of making our lives better rather than extracting as much wealth from it as possible and moving on. Having clean water, air and natural spaces is something which makes life better for most people, so I think they'd want to find a balence between getting the resources they need from nature while leaving it as intact and undamage as possible.

I mean, are you against "mastering nature" if it's done in a logical and reasonable way? Farming is an example of man matering nature... are you against that? The only way for man not to be masterin nature in some way is to be a hunter-gatherer (as long as you don't use any tools in the process).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
All the bullshit about man dominating nature, is that bullshit! Sure we could stop the hurricanes, we could make it shine all day if we wanted. But do you want a globe without coral reefs? Do you like having (relatively) clean air to breath when you go to the country? Or do you like and want a fucked up planet?

As soon as humans try and dominate the planet, they will either fuck it up, or be fucked up. Bigger hurricanes, bigger floods, longer droughts. I think what we have now (in terms of climate) is better.

This planet is fucked up! Which is to say that it was not "designed" for our comfort, convenience, or even safety. If we want to live on a planet that is both safe and pleasant to live on, we shall ultimately have to make one (or more).

Since such a task far exceeds our present capabilities, the only recourse we presently have is to modify the planet we currently inhabit in such directions as make it safer and more pleasant for us to live on.

To dominate nature instead of being dominated by it.

You believe, of course, that such a course will only "make things worse"...that humans are incurable fuckups who will "never get it right". That strikes me as a rather peculiar form of pessimism...it almost sounds like "original sin".

Some have argued that humans are "conservative" by nature -- inherently opposed to substantive change. Anything "new" is "scary".

I think that's true about some humans...like yourself, for example. But in my own case (and that of others!), I've "come a long way baby" from the days when my ancestors lived in trees and gathered ripe fruit for a living. I am not content with "things as they are" and refuse, insofar as I am able, to submit to them.

Indeed, what even I sometimes find astonishing is how much things need to be changed.


But, people who complain of earthquakes and build brick/concrete houses (when they have the choice, unlike in Pakistan) should not complain when their houses fall down.

Few of us have any choice in building materials no matter where we live. These decisions are presently made by the capitalist class in their own interests...not ours.

It's been known for a long time that wooden frame buildings are most resistant to earthquakes while masonry buildings are most resistant to hurricanes. There are known techniques for strengthening both kinds of structures against the dangers which are most threatening to them.

But as long as decision-making is confined to a wealthy elite, those decisions will be made from economic (profit-maximizing) motives.

Safety is a secondary consideration under capitalism. Do you think the ruling class cries itself to sleep every night over the more than 1,000 Katrina deaths?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[workersunity]

I really enjoyed reading your responses comrades, especially redstar for his insight, and first hand experience. So what you are trying to say, is that when a government is adequate in helping its citizens from natural disasters and people get put before private property, that is the main concern. the "domination over nature" isnt that problematic as long as the care for the people is put before profit.. is this what your saying? so i understand?